All of these points relating to 9/11 truth are simply too many and too related to just be “a coincidence”.
And they are written below:

why did rice say no one could have ever imagined attacks of the type when the war games being done that day by the military involved hijaked aircraft
the black color of fire in some videos means that its oxygen deprived and about to go out; firefighters said they were under control (e.g. one on high level up)
the tower started toppling over until it was at 23 degrees of leaning; if so then the removed weight of that leaning section could not cause a pancake effect
whyd many small lateral ejections of dust during the collapse shoot out perpendicularly when just a collapse by itself there wouldnt be such a perp. force
smoke doesnt melt steel; cant see any major fire before collapses, looked like they were almost out and that fire was not spreading whatsoever in any way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5amaZeL_2s…………person working at fiduciary trust actually saw physical dust inside the towers before 9/11
why the flash bright point of light at the front cone of the planes half a second before they impact from any angle at any time; very strange
no airplane wreckage of a 757 at the Pentagon; grass is green all the way more or less to the building
reports by so many eye witnesses of explosions at the twin towers; including William Rodriguez and close friend
the fact that seismic data indicated a large tremor seconds prior to the onset of the collapse and seconds prior to the first sound of the collapse
no airplane wreckage of a 757 at Shanksville; same mining strip as in satellite photos of pre 9/11
slip of tongue by Rumsfeld on YouTube of the aircraft that was shot down over Pennsylvania
slip of tongue by Bush of explosives placed high enough to prevent people from escaping
lack of video evidence of plane hitting the Pentagon; various reports of immediate FBI video confiscations
fact that the Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain had the majority of the tower on fire for much much longer; 24 hours; still stood standing even to support a crane
collapse of WTC 7 was exactly like controlled demolition; in which explosives are clearly visible running up right hand side which can not be from air pressure
fact that WTC 7 collapsed with ruins in a tidy and organized square plot with debris on video for a fact ending at the sidewalk of directly adjacent buildings
fact that Silverstein was quoted on documentary of using the pull term when saying and we watched the building collapse; how on video “pull” said for WTC5,6
fact that BBC reported WTC 7 had already collapsed when in fact the building itself can be seen in the background of the reporter for 20 min after the fact
PNAC: Project for a New American Century called for catalyzing event of “new Pearl Harbor”; which was 9/11
Jeb Bush being head of Securacom which had control of security for Twin Towers
fact that there was insider trading on AA and UA airlines’ stocks only directly prior to 9/11
fact that only pro government related movies as they relate to the attack such as United 93 and World Trade Center in theaters and no truth films at all
the fact that there were numerous evacuations and power down prior to 9/11; power down for suspiciously “upgrading wires”; wires are used for CDs
fact that there was eye witnesses to dust in towers in line with power down; aka employee of Fiduciary Trust hearing also loud dramatic banging noises
fact that it is impossible for cell phones to call houses on the ground; my own 10 trials on a plane confirming this too; gov. talks of cell phone calls
fact that Cleveland mayor and United Airlines at Cleveland Hopkins Intl Airport both confirmed that plane landing after 10am was identified as UA 93
fact that the Bush Admin made a 441 day effort to stall the 9/11 Commission investigation of the attacks
fact that Bush stayed in the classroom for around 10 minutes after being told the country is under attack when this is not secret service protocol
fact that molten metal was found at the ruins which is indicative of heavy duty thermite explosive material; fact that WTC fires burned for record around 2, 3 mo.
fact that all buildings fell at free fall speed; indicating no resistance at all whatsoever from below floors
fact that there are numerous reports of hijackers being alive after 9/11 is the Middle East
fact that Jamie McIntyre reported at Pentagon on 9/11 nothing that would indicate aircraft crashed there, then suspiciously made opposite claim years later
fact that more or less all mainstream media attacks in hostile way all truthers that appear on their programs when media supposed to be fair and balanced

The testimonial evidence about the condition of WTC7 prior to its precipitate collapse is contradictory and no doubt hampered by the obscuring clouds of dust and smoke. Whether the fatal damage occurred all at once or progressively is not decisive to the question of what caused the collapse. However, if there are any photographs available to corroborate the “huge gaping hole” Boyle referred to I’d like to see them.

Photographic analyses at http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/ and http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/ show the best images available of the south side, but these don’t appear to support Boyle’s account. If you know of any that do, please let us know.

Davin Coburn, Popular Mechanics’ contributor and “fact checker” for their “Debunking 9/11 Myths” book said in a radio interview that he had been shown pictures of this damage by the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies.
He was unable to explain why what he had seen was too sensitive for public scrutiny. He was also unable to explain why publishers of a magazine are allowed to view material that remains classified to the rest of us.
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3
Transcript here: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060826165457842

If there was widespread damage on the south side of the building, enough to cause a catastrophic collapse, why did it, instead of toppling over on that side, fall vertically and symmetrically, causing demolition expert Danny Jowenko to be absolutely certain he was watching a controlled demolition?
http://911blogger.com/node/3231
Incidentally, Van D Romero, Ph.D., formerly Director of Energetic Materials Research & Testing Center, New Mexico Tech. was the first of many highly qualified and experienced construction engineers, physicists and accident analysts to express a similar opinion about the Twin Towers. (Olivier Uyttebrouck, Albuquerque Journal, 21/09/01)
Others referenced here: http://www.ae911truth.org/

If buildings can be brought down neatly onto their foundations by blowing out one side, why do demolition experts take such pains to lay explosives on each side and time them to fire simultaneously?

The FEMA report stated: “The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.” http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
If the collapse was primarily due to fire, it must have been an exceptional one, because it achieved what no fire in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings has before or since. “Experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” (New York Times, 29/11/01) Can you give me an example of a comparable building which has collapsed to its foundations as a result of fire? If it was an exceptional fire, why does none of the photographic evidence show a building engulfed in flames - just a few isolated fires?

If there was clear evidence of damage sufficient to undermine the building’s integrity, why did the FEMA report not say so?

If damage was a major factor, clearly FEMA’s report must be bogus because it explains the collapse without invoking this cause.

If FEMA’s report arrived at its conclusion despite the evidence, will NIST do any better, given that they rely upon several of the same authors?

Doesn’t the fact that “no steel was recovered from WTC7” (NCSTAR 1-3) rather limit the scope of their scientific analysis?

Finally, I’ve yet to hear any satisfactory explanation of WTC owner Silverstein’s famous comment in reference to WTC7: “I remember getting a call from the, er, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

If you show the video to someone who doesn’t even know WTC7 collapsed on 9/11, they will understand that he is talking about demolishing the building. Try it. The context of his remark in the film makes this interpretation inescapable. “America Rebuilds”: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/PullIt3.wmv
The same documentary contains the phrase from a demolition worker “we’re getting ready to pull the building six” just before they demolished WTC6: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv
What method of demolition he had in mind is immaterial, but he cannot have meant “maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building” (as the spokesman for Silverstein Properties later contended) because no firefighting was attempted at WTC7. “Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.” (FEMA)
“According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building.” (NIST)

However we understand the statement, it is implausible on several counts. Why in the midst of coordinating a major emergency response would the fire department commander telephone the owner of the property to tell him he was not sure whether they could contain the fire? What purpose would this serve or how would it assist his mission? Even stranger is the idea that he would be taking advice from Silverstein about either withdrawing his crew or demolishing the building. Besides, if the FEMA and NIST reports are to be believed, the commander would not tell Silverstein “they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire” because “firefighting was never started in the building”.

Shown a year after the event, the documentary inevitably raised the topic of WTC7 to many previously unaware of it. Was Silverstein trying to deflect raised curiosity from casual observers by making the destruction of WTC7 sound like the result of a pragmatic decision rather than the enigma it remains? One can only guess, but absent of any logical interpretation, the remark is bound to add to other suspicions about Silverstein’s involvement in the events of 9/11 - suspicion he finds it either unnecessary or impossible to dispel. Those of us who accept there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a false-flag event, regard his remark as but a tiny fragment of it.

“This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11.”

Notice the part where you said “ALL”? You do know what “ALL” means, do you not? I’ll let you in on a little secret: It means “EVERYONE”. And Ron counts. Not satisfied? Again, I quote:

“So here is my offer to both the 9/11 truth movement and to the backers and creators of the official story: Bring it on!”

See the part where you said “the backers … of the official story”. Ron is a backer of the official story, Jesse. Surprised?

“To the 9/11 Commission … and to the portion of the general public who still believe the official explanation of the events of 9/11: assemble your team and get ready to educate us.”

I highlight the phrase, “and to the portion of the general public”. Guess what, Jesse? Ron is a member of the general public. Who would have guessed?!!!

There is no excuse for you to back down on your challenge, yet you have. I have no doubt, you will go running to your truther friends, proclaiming that no one would debate you. If you do, you are a LIAR. Remember that.

It’s time for some real truth, Jesse. You whine and whine that no-one in the media will touch you. Do you want to know why? Because THEY DON’T CARE. No - it’s not because they have sold-out. They don’t care about you or your pathetic “movement” for the same reason they don’t care about the man who claimed he can live without food or water - it’s just to whacked out and crazy to be true, and with a complete lack of any supporting empirical evidence to boot. YOU ARE A NUT.

The only people who take you seriously enough to bother even debunking you are your old enemies - the skeptics. And even we begin to tire of it after the 10,000th truther has proudly marched into the JREF forums to smugly proclaim, as if no one else ever had, that “fire can’t melt steel”.

I know why you do it. It makes you feel superior to the average Joe. There’s no shame in that - everybody like to feel superior to everyone else. The difference is, the “truth movement” makes it incredibly easy - all you have to do is roll out of bed. Done! You are superior because you haven’t “sold out”. You know “the truth”. And what’s more - you didn’t need a fancy university degree in order to discover “the truth”. You did it with your natural, superior (need I say), intelligence. How great that must feel.

It must also feel great to know that you aren’t a sheep, yeah? I mean, you don’t blindly swallow the tripe spoon-fed by “the corporate media”. No! You’re too smart to fall for that crap! Instead, you blindly swallow the tripe spoon-fed to you by Avery, Jones (both of ‘em!), Fetzer, et al. Man, you are sooooo not a sheep.

I will sign off with this, Jesse: You made a challenge. It was accepted. Now, SHOW UP OR SHUT UP!

-qarnos.

You responded to only one of the people who accepted your one sided “challenge”, and that was to tell him that you meant to challenge everyone BUT him, or something along that ridiculous train of thought.

Looks like you aren’t quite that concerned about the “truth” after all, rather what you WANT the truth to be.

Another of the self labeled “truth movement” shows their true colors, nothing to see here folks.

But, then, you already knew that.

WTF?!? So who was he talking about when he wrote:

Originally Posted by Jesse
I am sending this challenge to a whole range of people who are trying so hard to ridicule and destroy the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement. The gamut runs from Michael Chertoff’s cousin who wrote the recent propaganda piece in Popular Mechanics to all the people involved in a coordinated effort to eliminate any 9/11 discussion at all. It also includes every one of the people working with coordinated venom to discredit the reputation of anyone who might influence Americans to actually look at the 9/11 evidence.

All of these people, along with their cohorts who regularly chime in and mock the 9/11 truth movement need to do one of two things: show up and discuss the evidence in public, recorded on video, with 9/11 experts CHOSEN BY ME, or shut the hell up!